Ex Parte Bergman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 29, 2016

12740593 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
121740,593 04/29/2010 Johan Bergman
24112 7590 03/30/2016
COATS & BENNETT, PLLC
1400 Crescent Green, Suite 300
Cary, NC 27518
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
4015-6849 I P24988-US2 9492
EXAMINER
HAILE, AWET A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2474
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
03/30/2016 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHAN BERGMAN and DIRK GERSTENBERGER
Appeal2014-002810
Application 12/740,593
Technology Center 2400
Before: ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
SCOTT B. HO\Xfi\~RD, Administrative Patent Judges.
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-002810
Application 12/740,593
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
15-28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The claimed invention is directed to a NodeB (NB) calculating a
difference between an estimated reception time of a user equipment signal
and a time reference, and determining whether the difference exceeds a
predefined threshold value. The NB initiates an uplink timing adjustment
when the difference exceeds the pre-defined threshold value. Spec. 6.
Claim 15, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
15. A method of uplink timing adjustment of a user equipment
in a Wideband Code Division Multiple Access (WCDMA)
communications system, said system comprising a Radio
Network Controller (RNC) connected to a NodeB, said NodeB
receiving signals from the user equipment, the method performed
by the NodeB and comprising:
calculating a difference between an estimated reception
time of one of the user equipment signals and a time reference;
determining whether said difference exceeds a pre-defined
threshold value; and
initiating the uplink timing adjustment only when said
difference exceeds the predefined threshold value.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
3GPP
Choi et al.
Chandra et al.
3GPP TR 25.854 v5.0.0 Dec. 2001
US 2003/0133429 Al July 17, 2003
US 2007/0133458 Al June 14, 2007
2
Appeal2014-002810
Application 12/740,593
Dalsgaard US 2009/0141701 Al June 4, 2009
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
1. Claims 15, 16, 19, 22, 23, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Dalsgaard.
2. Claims 17, 20, 24, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Choi and Dalsgaard as applied to claims
above, and further in view of Chandra.
3. Claims 18, 21, 25, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Choi and Dalsgaard as applied to claims
above, and further in view of 3GPP.
ISSUES
The pivotal issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Choi in view of Dalsgaard teaches the limitations of
"determining whether said difference exceeds a pre-defined threshold value;
and initiating the uplink timing adjustment only when said difference
exceeds the predefined threshold value," as required by claim 15.
ANALYSIS
We adopt the Examiner's findings in the Answer and Final Action,
and we add the following primarily for emphasis.
Appellants argue the Examiner must give patentable weight to the
terms "only when," as recited in claim 15, because otherwise the Examiner
is reading out limitations, and no authority was cited by the Examiner to
3
Appeal2014-002810
Application 12/740,593
support such a claim construction (App. Br. 5). Appellants further argue
Choi does not teach the disputed limitation of "initiating the uplink timing
adjustment only when said difference exceeds the predefined threshold
value" as recited in claim 15 (App. Br. 8 (emphasis added)).
Appellants also argue that in Dalsgaard, if the timing adjustment (TA)
is valid, it is used right away, and if it is invalid, then a new one is promptly
determined and used (App. Br. 8). According to Appellants, the validity
determination step affects only which determined TA value is used - not
whether an uplink timing adjustment is performed as claimed (App. Br. 8).
Accordingly, Appellants assert Dalsgaard cannot be said to disclose
initiating an uplink timing adjustment only when a difference exceeds a
predefined threshold as required by claim 15 (App. Br. 8).
Appellants also argue Choi performs its time alignment whenever a
measured time delay, 8 (i.e., the time delay between an expected and actual
frame reception), is outside of a specified range (i.e., less than -1/ml or
greater than l/m2) (App. Br. 9 (citing Choi, Fig. 24)). According to
Appellants, modifying Choi to only perform timing adjustment if 8 exceeds
that range would violate the express teachings of Choi, as Choi would be
unable to shift transmission time backwards because step 2423 would be
forbidden from occurring (App. Br. 9). That is, restricting Choi to only
initiate uplink timing adjustments when its determined difference exceeds
the range would violate Choi's teachings about also initiating uplink timing
adjustments when its difference is less than the range (App. Br. 9).
Appellants conclude that Choi, therefore, teaches against this proposed
modification (App. Br. 9).
At the outset, we note the conditional method limitation of "only
when said difference exceeds the predefined threshold value" need not be
4
Appeal2014-002810
Application 12/740,593
found in the cited prior art, under the broadest scenario, because the method
need not invoke the step. See Ex parte Gary M Katz, 2011 WL 514314, *4
(BPAI 2011) (citing In re Am. Acad. Of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364
(Fed. Cir. 2004)). See also MPEP 2106 II C "Language that suggests or
makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a
claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim
limitation." Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the limitation of "only
when" makes the step optional.
Nonetheless, the Examiner finds the teaching of the conditional
disputed limitation in the combined teachings of Choi in view of Dalsgaard
(Ans. 3-8). In particular, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Choi implicitly
teaches Appellants' argued claim limitation, because Choi teaches
(paras. 278, 298, 309-310 and Fig. 24, steps 2415, 2423, 2421), Node B
instructing a UE to adjust uplink timing (i.e., advancing or delaying UL
DPCH signal transmission time), by setting time alignment bit (TAB) value
to -1 (see Fig. 24 step 2423) or 1 (see Fig. 24 step 2421) when the difference
exceeds the lower limit (i.e., -1/ml) in the negative direction or when the
difference exceeds the upper limit (l/m2) in the positive direction as shown
in Fig. 24 step 2415 (Ans. 3). We further agree with the Examiner's finding
that Dalsgaard explicitly teaches, comparing measured time difference with
a predetermined threshold and initiating new timing synchronization when
the measured time difference is greater than a predetermined threshold (see
paras. 52-54 and Fig. 7 steps 718-724; Ans. 8).
Furthermore, we agree with the Examiner's finding that because Choi
initiates uplink timing when a difference exceeds a predetermined limit as
discussed supra, Choi does not teach away from the teaching of Dalsgaard
5
Appeal2014-002810
Application 12/740,593
that initiates new timing synchronization when the measured time
differences is greater than the predetermined threshold (Ans. 8).
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 15 and for
the same reasons the rejections of claims 16-28 which were not argued
separately.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Choi in
view of Dalsgaard teaches the limitations of "determining whether said
difference exceeds a pre-defined threshold value; and initiating the uplink
timing adjustment only when said difference exceeds the predefined
threshold value" as required by claim 15.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims
15-28.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l.136(a)(l)(iv) (2012).
AFFIRMED
6